Canada’s Controversial Income Tax

      No Comments on Canada’s Controversial Income Tax

By Shirley Tillotson

This is the third in a five part theme week marking the centenary of income tax in Canada.

Calm fiscal reasoning was hard to summon up amidst the intense emotions of 1917. Demands for taxes on profits, high incomes, and wealth were fuelled by anger that was about not only fair public finance,  but also broader patterns in the distribution of wealth. In 1917, Canadians got a federal tax on income – but wealth remained safe.

In fact, as Sir Thomas White’s political opponents would soon realize, in legislating the income tax at that particular moment, he had cannily helped big investors to an extra good return on some of their wealth, namely the large quantities of war bonds they would buy in the first Victory loan drive of November 1917. Income from those bonds would be tax-exempt. In the interwar debates about the future of the federal income tax, those tax-free bonds would play the role that “gold-plated government pensions” do today: a red flag of taxpayer resentment. Income tax controversies would continue to swirl and churn, in particularly Canadian ways. Continue reading →

What does the coming of income tax tell us about “fairness” in 1917?

      1 Comment on What does the coming of income tax tell us about “fairness” in 1917?

By E.A. Heaman

This is the second in a five part theme week marking the centenary of income tax in Canada.

Robert Borden’s government introduced income tax in 1917 because Canadians wanted a fairer system of taxation than they had. How unCanadian of them! According to Margaret Wente (writing about Thomas Piketty’s egalitarian economics), Canadians have never been interested in inequality. “They simply don’t perceive a problem… The obsession with inequality is overwhelmingly a concern of the liberal policy elites – the people who live in rich liberal coastal states, or Toronto’s Annex, or Ottawa’s Glebe.” Wente mocked “a bunch of experts,” the Toronto Star, and the CBC for weighing in on the data and suggested that the real social divide in Canada may not be rich versus poor but policy elites versus masses.[1]

So what happened in 1917? Was it an embarrassing moment when the wonks triumphed over common sense? Or is she wrong about Canadians and inequality? Wente’s skepticism is a salutary one: it encourages us to revisit those events and try to understand what was special about the relationship between policy, public opinion, and fairness in that exceptional year.

Certainly 1917 was exceptional. Continue reading →

When Income Tax Was Like a Fire

      2 Comments on When Income Tax Was Like a Fire

By David Tough

This is the first in a five part theme week marking the centenary of income tax in Canada.

This summer, on the 100th anniversary of the passing of Income War Tax, I’ve seen the same fable repeated half a dozen times. No, it wasn’t a temporary tax, and no, it wasn’t introduced to pay for the First World War. It was introduced to win over a particularly difficult section of the public, one whose opposition to the war and to the economic system it was being fought to protect was growing rapidly.

More to the point, income taxation wasn’t brought in by an overzealous government using the war as a pretext for a money grab. The people wanted income taxation, and welcomed it as better than consumption taxes. Organized farmers and workers in particular wanted it, and campaigned relentlessly for it in their newspapers. It was the government that was resistant, but they had no choice: their feet were to the fire. Continue reading →

“More of the Same”: Senator Beyak & Canada’s Refusal to Learn History

      2 Comments on “More of the Same”: Senator Beyak & Canada’s Refusal to Learn History

By Mercedes Peters

For the second time in a matter of months, Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak has drawn ire for her comments on Indigenous people in Canada. Earlier this year, in March, Beyak was criticized for her defence of the Residential School System when she stated that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report let the “remarkable works, [and] good deeds” of those who ran the schools “go unacknowledged.” While this statement deserves comment for its praise of the mechanisms that caused long-lasting harm to hundreds of thousands of Indigenous children, not to mention the generations that followed, her most recent statement made in an open letter published on her website is where I want to place my focus. Beyak’s words raise questions about Canada’s repeated failure to acknowledge readily available histories that for at least the past four decades serve to justify recognition of Indigenous rights.

In the letter, entitled “More of the Same is Not the Answer,” Beyak states that

The mountains, rivers, and streams belong to all of us. None of us are leaving, so let’s stop the guilt and blame and find a way to live together and share. Trade your status card for a Canadian citizenship, with a fair and negotiated payout to each Indigenous man, woman and child in Canada, to settle all the outstanding land claims and treaties, and move forward together just like the leaders already do in Ottawa. All Canadians are then free to preserve their cultures in their own communities, on their own time, with their own dime.

The letter manages to accurately draw the conclusion that “what [Canada is] doing is simply not working.” At the same time, however, it demands that Indigenous people surrender their rights and identities, and submit to the ‘privilege’ of Canadian citizenship for their own good. Her suggestion is remarkably ironic; Beyak has identified what Canada has been attempting (and failing) to do to Indigenous people since before Confederation as “a real change.” Despite her attempts to diverge from the norm, Beyak is upholding that norm in a way nearly identical to her federal predecessors by challenging the existence of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, unique by virtue of a continuous, historical relationship between Indigenous people and settler governments.[1] And like those who came before her, Beyak’s comments demonstrate an active refusal to acknowledge the history that both explains and justifies ‘special status,’ as well as an unwillingness to take Indigenous voices seriously. Continue reading →

Decolonization, Indigenization and the History Department in Canada

      2 Comments on Decolonization, Indigenization and the History Department in Canada

 [This article was first published in the Canadian Historical Association Bulletin, 43.2, 2017, p. 32-33]

By: Mary Jane Logan McCallum, Julie Nagam, James Hanley, Anne-Laurence Caudano and Delia Gavrus

Our aim in this article is to document some of the recent activities that we have engaged in as a History Department to think critically about colonization and decolonization as history teachers, scholars and faculty members in Canada in the early twenty-first century. A rigorous cadre of Indigenous scholars has offered substantial critiques of University efforts to respond to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) and to “Indigenize the Academy.”  These critiques tend to focus on the seemingly substantial gap between administrative goals and practical on the ground concerns and building alternative post-secondary philosophies of education.[1] Mandatory courses, such as the Indigenous Course Requirement (ICR) established at the University of Winnipeg in 2016, have been one example used in many of the critiques, with scholars identifying shortcomings of the model and indicating concern that they show only minimal efforts on the part of the university when much broader substantial change is needed.[2] Within this discussion, scholars argue that Universities need to undertake substantial hiring plans, and ensure that Indigenous faculty are directing these processes throughout.  They also argue that Native/Indigenous/First Nations Studies Departments should lead and inform this process at all Universities. History departments also have a role to play and in our department, this conversation has been led by Indigenous scholars and energetically backed by our colleagues.

In some ways our department is currently in a unique situation to undertake Indigenization/decolonization work. Our Department leadership is supportive of Indigenous history teaching and scholarship and many individual department members are interested in gaining a sense of literacy in Indigenous (particularly local) history. Our department has, at least since the 1980s, been a centre for fur trade and ethnohistory scholarship and has recently built a substantial, committed and diverse Indigenous history area staff (including three Indigenous faculty[3]) offering a thoughtful and responsive curriculum.[4]  Our department has a good working relationship with the Indigenous Studies department.  Moreover, the University of Winnipeg more broadly has prioritized Indigenous education and has been led by a significant activist body of Indigenous students critically invested in uncovering, revising and understanding the impacts of local, national and global histories of Indigeneity and colonialism.

Recent Department activity was conditioned in part by the University’s Strategic Directions, adopted in late 2015 after an extensive consultation process, which identified Indigenization as one of five key strategic priorities. At the same time, a student-led initiative around a mandatory requirement for course work in Indigenous studies was actively debated in Senate. Approval in principle of this requirement in Spring 2015 led to the creation of a university-wide advisory committee whose recommendation was passed by Senate in November 2015. In the midst of this, in June 2015, the TRC released its findings, broadcast to an overflowing audience of more than 700 people in Riddell Hall. The History Department had the expertise, commitment, and responsibility to respond to this moment.[5]

Continue reading →

The Value of History in the ‘Age of Fake News’

      2 Comments on The Value of History in the ‘Age of Fake News’

Christo Aivalis

Protest group with man holding a "I Wish This Were Fake News" sign.

Photo by Kayla Velasquez on Unsplash

During the 2016 American presidential election, but especially after the victory of Donald J. Trump, the term fake news became part of the public lexicon. The confluence of social media, digital campaigns, and the monetization of internet ‘clicks’ led to numerous instances of groups outright fabricating news stories, either to serve ideological objectives, or even just to generate high web traffic and income. And while such falsifications were more likely to emanate from the Trump/Republican side of the equation, Clinton/Democratic partisans were not innocent from the use of—or belief in—fake news that confirmed their ideological biases. And in a time where Trump is president, Democratic Party partisans, according to some, have become increasingly vulnerable to recirculating fake news stories.

Clearly, the spectre of fake news being shared across Facebook and Twitter from less-than-reputable web domains is a concerning one and most of us are guilty of playing a role in this cycle. The prevalence of fake news has also been used by traditional news sources like The New York Times and Washington Post to highlight the social value that well-researched and vetted journalism provides, even if that journalism comes at a personal cost to the consumer. As former Prime Minister Kim Campbell has argued in The Globe and Mail, “preserving our sources of reliable information should be our mission as citizens and leaders.”

But as important as first-rate journalism is to the health of democratic society, so are multiple disciplines within the academy. Specifically, the work of historians offers much of value in terms of textual analysis, a critical eye to how sources are created, preserved, and hierarchized, and a wider context that tends to complicate societal ‘common senses’ that underwrite much of our current fake news climate. Indeed, since Trump’s win many have argued that history and related scholarly disciplines are core tools to preserve the sanctity of truth within education and mass media. And while historians need not pat themselves on the back too vigorously, the role we can play in providing viable information—even without definitive answers—is a vindication of the humanities in our times.

But perhaps the greater role historians can play in this moment revolves less in our ability to quash fake news through our supposed mastery of archival research, and more in the contextualization of the very idea of fake news. Continue reading →

Do you know what the children are learning?

      3 Comments on Do you know what the children are learning?

By Samantha Cutrara

What is the purpose of learning history? Are we doomed to repeat it? Do we lose grounding? Are we stranded without space or place? Does history provide us with the skills for understanding evidence or content for narrating experience? As adults, as educators, as historians, we answer these questions with a blend of cliché and seriousness, never precisely getting at the reason we sense history’s importance, but never completely abandoning the dime store clichés that frame our popular engagement with the past either. The moral panic that accompanies these questions is often directed toward youth, as if the frivolity of adolescence will somehow erase the past and the lessons it can teach for the future.

Young girl reading a book, Central Circulating Library at College and St. George Streets, Toronto, Ontario (1930-1960) Department of Manpower and Immigration. Library and Archives Canada, e011055621

It is with this fear that History and Social Studies is often racked with so much public debate about what, how, and why it should be taught. Education historian Ken Osborne has shown that these conversations have been happening in Canada for over a hundred years, with the pendulum shifting to a new fad every 25 years. These debates are often sparked by a panic about the decline of national identity and are used as a rallying call for educational reform by those who want straight facts, those who want historical redemption, or those who want greater transferable skills. But even with all these questions and panic and ideological shifts, do you know what Canadian youth are actually mandated to learn about Canadian history? Continue reading →

History Slam Episode 103: Reviewing the New Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of History

      2 Comments on History Slam Episode 103: Reviewing the New Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of History

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

By Sean Graham

On July 1, 2017, the Canadian Museum of History opened its new Canada Hall to the public. After a multi-year renovation project, which included consultations across the country, there was great anticipation to see what the museum had put together for visitors. The reviews have been generally positive – even if they point out some of the Hall’s shortcomings – and anecdotally, people seem to be enjoying the refreshed look. Given the fanfare, it was only natural that the History Slam take a stroll across the river to take a first-hand look at the renovated Canada Hall.

In this episode of the History Slam, podcast Hall of Famers Aaron Boyes and Madeleine Kloske join me as we walk through the new Canada Hall. We give our thoughts before we head into the exhibit, break down each of the sections as we walk through, and even play one of the new interactive games. We then sit down following the visit and give our thoughts on the exhibit as a whole, its strengths and weaknesses, and give our grades for the revamped Canada Hall.

Continue reading →

Supporting the Work of ActiveHistory.ca

      No Comments on Supporting the Work of ActiveHistory.ca

For the past eight years, ActiveHistory.ca has functioned as an entirely volunteer-run website without robust financial supports. This has meant that when technical problems that exceed our abilities have arisen, we have needed to go cap-in-hand to drum up emergency funding to maintain the website or – occasionally – pay these costs out of pocket.

As our website and audience have grown, now hosting over 1,500 essays, podcasts, and other posts, and an audience of about 35,000-40,000 unique visitors per month, the editorial collective has become increasingly uncomfortable with the uncertainties caused by this informal structure. Last spring, we began to put in place safeguards to ensure that ActiveHistory.ca is able to continue on a more stable foundation. First, the History Department at the University of Saskatchewan agreed to support our ongoing costs related to web hosting. Second, Huron University College, agreed to support a bank account for the site and a process through which donations can be made to the Active History project. In both cases, this support reflects the role that scholars at both institutions have played in shaping, and continuing to shape, the Active History project. It also provides us with financial oversight and guidelines that ensure sound fiscal stewardship.

Today, we would like to ask you to consider supporting ActiveHistory.ca financially. By donating to ActiveHistory.ca you will be helping us ensure that the editorial collective can maintain the website, keeping its backend up-to-date and current. Because these costs vary from year-to-year – and we have never before asked for financial support – we have also created a plan for surplus funds in order to provide support for new Active History projects, exemplary practices of Active History, and to support costs incurred by editors whose conditions of employment might not off-set the costs associated with their work on the website. You can read the full details here (Active History Donations Policy).

Though we have decided to formally ask for your financial support, we want to be clear that ActiveHistory.ca will continue to exist as a volunteer-run, not-for-profit, and advertising-free digital space. This website is not possible without the countless volunteer hours that our committed group of editors, contributing editors, and authors put into ensuring that ActiveHistory.ca continues to produce well-researched and argued history-focused material each week.

In providing the option to support this project financially, it is our hope that these financial resources will provide a foundation to ensure that this work remains available for the years to come.

Please consider donating by visiting our donations page.

White Supremacy, Political Violence, and Community: The Questions We Ask, from 1907 to 2017

      4 Comments on White Supremacy, Political Violence, and Community: The Questions We Ask, from 1907 to 2017

Building damaged during Vancouver riot of 1907 – 130 Powell Street. UBC Archives, JCPC_ 36_017

Laura Ishiguro and Laura Madokoro

In recent weeks, we have seen white supremacist rallies in cities across North America, from Charlottesville to Quebec City. On each occasion, anti-fascist and anti-racist activists, along with other community members, have confronted these rallies with large and diverse counter-demonstrations, largely shutting them down, overwhelming them, or rendering them caricatures of their original plans.  On 19 August, Vancouver was the site of one such confrontation. A planned anti-Islam rally at Vancouver’s City Hall mostly failed to materialize alongside a counter-protest of approximately 4000 people, organized by an ad hoc group, Stand Up To Racism Metro Vancouver.

As historians of migration and settler colonialism, we are reminded that these events – often represented as exceptional, new, or surprising – highlight much wider and older tensions in Canada. In particular, as we consider the recent events and their political stakes in Vancouver, we are struck by their resonance with something that happened in the city exactly 110 years ago today.

On Saturday 7 September 1907, Vancouver was gripped by one of the largest race riots in Canadian history. This event started with a large gathering of people who also marched on City Hall, in that case behind a banner that said: “Stand for a White Canada.”[1] After listening to fiery speeches against Asian immigration, a significant number then headed to Chinese and Japanese neighbourhoods in the city, where they wreaked extensive property damage, physical violence, and terror.

In thinking about the recent Stand Up To Racism event alongside the 1907 parade and riot, we could tell a story about how much has changed in a city now willing to turn out in numbers to drown out calls for a “White Canada.” But we could equally tell a story about how little has changed in a settler colonial city still organized around inequality and rage, including ongoing anti-Asian racism. Both of these arguments would be important and well supported with evidence, but here we want to reflect on a different issue. What questions does the 1907 event raise for us, and how do these relate to the questions we might ask – or more pointedly, often fail to ask – of the present? Continue reading →